teshra: So what? Whats your point? He was German. Was every German at that time automatically a Nazi? Is every American an asshole in the eyes of many in this world? Is every Muslim a terrorist? Is it not documented that Schindler saved many Jews in his time? Why discount that with your 2 sentence nonsense?

Dude, so much of what you say is garbage. Why do you try SO hard to fit in? Why do you have to throw your 2 cents in in just about every thread that I peruse? Honestly, if you got nothing to add, if you quote a whole thread and then post something totally unrelated to what was said, keep it to yourself. Thank you.

teshra: Was every German at that time automatically a Nazi? Is every American an asshole in the eyes of many in this world? Is every Muslim a terrorist? Is it not documented that Schindler saved many Jews in his time?

Elmofongo: I can see where this is going and I am not gonna like it happening in my thread :(

Elmofongo: I can see where this is going and I am not gonna like it happening in my thread :(

Vitek: Don't worry, only way this could lead is to kingdom of heaven. :-)

Vitek: No, every German wasn't automatically in NSDAP and Schindler was, most likely for personal gain, not for conviction. He moved to Poland to exploit German conquest, which could be quite unappealing to people. Yes, he helped to save many people and that's much more important than being passive member of NSDAP (and it can be seen as agreeing with NSDAP policy), but that's exactly the kind of slip Elmofongo asked about in OP, so it would disqualify him as saint in rules of this thread, so I don't see any problem with mentioning it.

Vitek: Don't worry, only way this could lead is to kingdom of heaven. :-)

Dischord: Not so much courage, as knowledge of tactical advantage.

Not wanting to burst any bubbles, but private writings indicate that many stances taken were to undermine the economy of a foe, and to keep support of moneyed interests in the northeast.

It matters little now, all worked out fine, but he was no water walker.

Edit: typo and my ignorant formatting :-)

Titanium: If by "this" you're referring to Vitek (as you should), I'm afraid the only place it's going for it's cardinal sin is purgatory - in this case, a place between alwaysonlimitedactivationssecuromexpierydateDRM and GOG.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go flagellate myself with some manuals with misprinted cd-keys.

Titanium: Gah! Ninja'd by a heathen!

McDon: Yes, but the fact he is more well-known than William Wilberforce seems wrong and the same will happen with that the U.S president that abolishes guns/death penalty will be remembered ,while whoever did the same in Europe years before will be forgotten.

teshra: All I said was trying to end slavery at that time was a huge step for this country. No one before Lincoln had gone for it. He decided to. It unfortunately led to war. Civil war. Each side did what they had to to try to win. He ultimately paid for the abolishment of slavery with his life. Thats not disputable.

teshra: [

Never said he was a water walker. Never said he was a perfect man. And you're not bursting any bubbles.

Was he not at war at the time, fighting for something he believed in, to bring about change to a country? (And before anyone wants to chime in that "he didn't fight, he had people fight for him"...right you are! Leaders do not fight and that comment was not 100% literal).

In war, you try to have a tactical advantage, in war, you try to undermine the economy of a foe, in war you try to keep support of moneyed interests that will support your side. The South did not want to give up their slaves and their way of life. Abe and his supporters thought it was time to bring that change and went about doing it.
Would he wanted it to be peaceful solution? Probably. But they were not willing so in times of war, you do what you must do so your side is victorious.

I really don't understand your comment as to why its bursting Lincoln's buuble. Your comment bursts the bubble on any leader who has gone to war, winning side or losing side. Its just a fact of war and you don't hold it against the victors or the losers. I mean, didn't the allies do the same in WW1, WW2, heck pick any war in the history of mankind and what you said happened has happened. Thats not solely Lincoln...its Washington, Churchill, Bush, Napoleon, etc.

All I said was trying to end slavery at that time was a huge step for this country. No one before Lincoln had gone for it. He decided to. It unfortunately led to war. Civil war. Each side did what they had to to try to win. He ultimately paid for the abolishment of slavery with his life. Thats not disputable.

Elmofongo: Oh good I was worried you were a Xenophobic F#%@ who is prejudice against People from the Czech Republic no harm done.

(Sorry about that but I just despise discrimination)

Dischord: Not his bubble, but yours.

Most of what you said, I do not dispute, but to ascribe altruistic motives to his actions are somewhat generous, imo.

Read just a bit before the civil war, and you will see that slavery was not the only motive of the South, although a part they were moving away from, but tariffs that the southern states didn't think the federal government had a right to constitutionally impose. A states rights issue, I'm not quite sure of myself, even today.

To make slavery the only issue is a lie, at best, and will never ignore other issues that preceded that, because it makes for better story telling.

teshra: Sir, I already explained once you aren't bursting any bubbles. I don't know how to emphasize that any more.
Secondly, I'm specifically talking about the issue of slavery. You brought in the whole civil war conversation. My simple single point about Lincoln (and also Mr. Schindler) is they both did amazing things in the face of long odds and against the thought processes of an entire nation during their day. The means to an end are just that. It does not change or dispute the fact that they both went against the sentiments of the day and stood out as instruments of potential change. The fact that they both succeeded in their own ways is why we know of them.

McDon was commenting someone in his part of the world didn't get the same notierity regarding slavery. I responded Lincoln had nothing to do with that. And then you brought in civil war and a win at all costs mentality. Sure, fine. He did what he had to do to win. As did General Robert E. Lee. Oh well, too bad for him I guess. The abolishment of slavery is a good thing in this country's history and for that, Lincoln is owed a bit of praise and acknowledgement as opposed to "but he didn't play fair when it came to war".